More Beatles vs. Apple Speculation

[MacRumors]

This DotMusic (http://www.dotmusic.com/news/August2003/news30434.asp) article revives speculation on the Beatles vs. Apple.

It appears to be based on older information however, with references to the rumors of Apple acquiring Universal Music.

[mrsebastian]

apple to take over the music distribution biz as we know it? sounds good to me and my apple stock.

[vulturecentral]

Not that DotMusic - as a potential iTunes Music Store competitor, when iTMS comes to Europe - has any axe to grind, of course...

[Powerbook G5]

Interesting to say the least...

[Ambrose Chapel]

man...i love the beatles more than a lot of things, but this is just ridiculous. apple records doesn't have nearly the name recognition as The Beatles does...they should let it drop.

[FattyMembrane]

Apple records pulled this stunt when Apple computer was first created. they reached an agreement that apple computer could use the name as long as they never produced audio/music equipment. when the first macs with microphones shipped, they included the "sosumi" sound.

Apple records needs to give it a rest. i didn't even know it was around any more. they should be looking forward to the publicity they'll get when people accidentally stop by their site instead of apple.com, or perhaps that's the entire motive behind this move...

[Doctor Q]

I think Steve Jobs should buy Apple Records and, while he's at it, Michael Jackson's rights to the Beatle's catalog. I'll chip in a dollar, Steve.

[alset]

Love the Beatles, but I must say that I'm a little tired of these antics. Nobody cares about the name, Apple Records. They care about the studio at Abbey Lane.

Dan

[bennetsaysargh]

now that would be something if SJ ewre to go to MJ's house to negotiate for the rights to the beatles songs, but wouldn't having the rights to the beatles songs make the beatles even more pissed?

[Keith Purfield]

I don't get the big deal. Apple Computers and Apple Records are different names. Just like Sony and Sony Ericsson.

[jaedreth]

Not quite the same thing...

Jaedreth

[Foocha]

Err... Sony Ericsson is a joint venture between Sony and Ericsson - Apple Records has no connection with Apple Computer.

[Rocketman]

Originally posted by Macrumors
This DotMusic (http://www.dotmusic.com/news/August2003/news30434.asp) article revives speculation on the Beatles vs. Apple.

It appears to be based on older information however, with references to the rumors of Apple acquiring Universal Music.

I believe Apple Corp is primarilly owned by Michael Jackson (the pop star artist) and Sony Records. Both are on record as strong supporters of Apple Computer Inc generallly and iPod, iTunes and computers specifically.

As such this is more an issue of dealing with a lisencing modification to a long standing contract and dealing with how to deal with the unexpected shift of Apple Computer Inc into music distribution proper, which I am sure neither party expected on day one of this contract.

Apple Corp is effectively a single product company (like a movie company often is) while Apple Computer Inc is a multi-product, multi-industry company.

I bet the end result is the new contract adds 10-30 cents per iPod to Apple Computer Inc's licensing cost to Apple Corp to address this unforseen issue.

Rocketman

[Ambrose Chapel]

Originally posted by alset
They care about the studio at Abbey Lane.

erm...abbey road
;) :D :)

[mvc]

Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
erm...abbey road
;) :D :)

Yeah, I imagine he was thinking of Penny Lane :D

[daRAT]

Originally posted by Ambrose Chapel
erm...abbey road
;) :D :)

When one can afford a G5 dual 2 ghz, one lives on Abbey Lane NOT Abbey Road :P

BTW, no one commented on the last line of the rumor?

[admin edit: please, no comments about the merits of foxnews as it always degrades into pointless political debate]

[1stunna]

apple the music company already sued apple computer in the early nineties. they got a settlement, and cannot sue again. this is old, and misinformed "news"

[junior]

Originally posted by 1stunna
apple the music company already sued apple computer in the early nineties. they got a settlement, and cannot sue again. this is old, and misinformed "news"


I think they can certainly sue again because Apple Computer has breached the contract again. I'm sure both parties have been negotiating for several months.

[mdntcallr]

You are wrong, they can sue again.

Apple has entered into a new business line, in the music industry. Which they had formerly agreed to stay out of.

So, I smell some type of settlement with Apple Records.

[daRAT]

Originally posted by daRAT
When one can afford a G5 dual 2 ghz, one lives on Abbey Lane NOT Abbey Road :P

BTW, no one commented on the last line of the rumor?

[admin edit: please, no comments about the merits of foxnews as it always degrades into pointless political debate]

oops sorry! ;]

[bignumbers]

Originally posted by mdntcallr
You are wrong, they can sue again.

Apple has entered into a new business line, in the music industry. Which they had formerly agreed to stay out of.

So, I smell some type of settlement with Apple Records.

The original suit was when Apple included CD-ROM drives for the first time, since they could be used for playing music (close enough to justify a lawsuit).

The interesting thing this time is Apple Computer is doing something that could make Apple Records happy - selling music. Why not a settlement that places The Beatles top-center of ITMS? Hmmm...

[rjwill246]

Originally posted by bignumbers
The interesting thing this time is Apple Computer is doing something that could make Apple Records happy - selling music. Why not a settlement that places The Beatles top-center of ITMS? Hmmm...
... I think you should be gla-aad!
yeah! yeah! yeah! yeeeaaahhhhhhhh!!!

[ollywilson2003]

Originally posted by Doctor Q
I think Steve Jobs should buy Apple Records and, while he's at it, Michael Jackson's rights to the Beatle's catalog. I'll chip in a dollar, Steve.

Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatles music?

[bennetsaysargh]

sadly, yes, yes he does. i'm pretty sure he tricked them into selling him the rights:(

[raynegus]

What happened was Yoko said she could get the rights at a good deal and Paul trusted her to do that. Then the next thing he new Micheal owned them. Paul has lost a lot of sleep since then.

I read that in an interview with Paul McCartney and it is sad. It was when Nike was using the song Revolution in their ads and Paul was working hard to stop them. He and John agreed when they were young to never use their music for advertising and he felt he owed it to John's memory to keep any ads from using music he co-wrote (Lennon/McCartney). But wacko jacko didn't care about that.

[Dave K]

Originally posted by ollywilson2003
Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatles music? Bought them in the early 80's, which ended his friendship with Paul McCartney.

See, good old Paul gave what turned out to be the worst piece of advice ever when he mentioned to his good friend Mike that the real money in music was to own rights. So, when the Beatles Catalog came on the market sometime later, Mike put in a competing bid and won out over Paul.

Needless to say, Paul was a tad bit pissed.

As to whether or not Apple Corp/Records Could sue Apple at this point, my understanding was that the last lawsuit cleared up all issues irregardless. As well, when the iTune's music store started up and Apple Records was brought up, some lawyers on another forum seemed to be of a consensus that Apple Records would have a fairly hard time arguing their case at this point given their relatively meager output and general lack of a broad public presence for at least a decade...

Expected Apple Computers would be considered the "superior brand" (for lack of the proper legal term), at this point in time...

[earlopogous]

here is the link to the fox new article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88439,00.html
it is a little clearer that the dotmusic article, although I am still wondering the validity of this article

if this is true, i think apple should just buy apple corps, they have 6 billion in cash, no?

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by earlopogous
here is the link to the fox new article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88439,00.html
it is a little clearer that the dotmusic article, although I am still wondering the validity of this article

if this is true, i think apple should just buy apple corps, they have 6 billion in cash, no?

It's 4 billion, and as you may not have noticed, since they get interest on that, getting rid of just a few million of that will plunge the company into the red quarter after quarter.

[arn]

Originally posted by earlopogous
here is the link to the fox new article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88439,00.html
it is a little clearer that the dotmusic article, although I am still wondering the validity of this article

if this is true, i think apple should just buy apple corps, they have 6 billion in cash, no?

bah... it's an old article. I remember it actually. Not a lot of substance... I lot of "I'm told..."

Thanks for finding it. No thanks to DotMusic for not providing the source link themselves.
arn

[AhmedFaisal]

Why? Because the one good thing this guy did is say that he will never allow Gangsta Rap cover versions of those songs. I already shiver at the thought of other great songs that have been abused and molested by Rap musicians like "Johnny B" (original by The Hooters), "Every Breath You Take" (original by Sting), and the latest and probably worst, "Afrika" (originally by T.O.T.O. now ruined by Ja Rule). With those songs in the hands of Apple I would not feel so sure that I might not be terrorized by a Rap version of "Imagine" one of these days.....:mad:
Cheers,

Ahmed

[sacrilicious]

Originally posted by raynegus
What happened was Yoko said she could get the rights at a good deal and Paul trusted her to do that. Then the next thing he new Micheal owned them. Paul has lost a lot of sleep since then.

I read that in an interview with Paul McCartney and it is sad. It was when Nike was using the song Revolution in their ads and Paul was working hard to stop them. He and John agreed when they were young to never use their music for advertising and he felt he owed it to John's memory to keep any ads from using music he co-wrote (Lennon/McCartney). But wacko jacko didn't care about that.

Jacko...on his backo! Good old SNL.

[bennetsaysargh]

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
Why? Because the one good thing this guy did is say that he will never allow Gangsta Rap cover versions of those songs. I already shiver at the thought of other great songs that have been abused and molested by Rap musicians like "Johnny B" (original by The Hooters), "Every Breath You Take" (original by Sting), and the latest and probably worst, "Afrika" (originally by T.O.T.O. now ruined by Ja Rule). With those songs in the hands of Apple I would not feel so sure that I might not be terrorized by a Rap version of "Imagine" one of these days.....:mad:
Cheers,

Ahmed

I;m sorry, but MJ is crazy, and i see no reason why he couldn't/wouldn't do just tat, but if someone else like the remaining Beatles got the rights back, then that would be very very good:)

[whatever]

SJ and Apple Computer should be fearful of this ever going to court in the UK. The WWF (yes the World Wrestling Federation) was taken to court by the other WWF (World Wildlife Fund) in England last year and lost. The Fund claimed that people were going to www.wwf.com and finding wrestlers instead of animals. And basically the anti-US court found in favor of the non-profit. The fund went as far as sueing for millions because they wanted the WWF to remove and rebrand everything that was already released (the court did throw that out). Both WWFs lived peacefully for over 20 years, but then one day the Fund decided they need a bigger pay day and sued and won. Granted the WWE (F) is not as big as Apple Computer, but it's still a billion dollar business that lost in court to an English "non-profit".

[Doctor Q]

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
I already shiver at the thought of other great songs that have been abused and molested by Rap musicians...I like covers, especially when the genres differ. I think it helps keep the music alive. I like listening to Kashmir by Led Zeppelin, as well as a version by the London Symphony and the Puff Daddy "Come With Me" version. Go ahead, make a rap version of "When I'm 64" and we'll see how it turns out!

[whatever]

Originally posted by sacrilicious
Jacko...on his backo! Good old SNL.

My understanding is that Yoko Ono did get a great deal. There's a widow deal in John and Paul's contract and she was able to buy back John's portion for close to nothing. There's not much talk about that, unless she re-sold it, but she did get it back.

[rickvanr]

Originally posted by AhmedFaisal
Why? Because the one good thing this guy did is say that he will never allow Gangsta Rap cover versions of those songs. I already shiver at the thought of other great songs that have been abused and molested by Rap musicians like "Johnny B" (original by The Hooters), "Every Breath You Take" (original by Sting), and the latest and probably worst, "Afrika" (originally by T.O.T.O. now ruined by Ja Rule). With those songs in the hands of Apple I would not feel so sure that I might not be terrorized by a Rap version of "Imagine" one of these days.....:mad:
Cheers,

Ahmed

there is a howie day cover of africa that is quite good tho... its just raps makes everything sound bad...

[rt_brained]

Originally posted by Foocha
Err... Sony Ericsson is a joint venture between Sony and Ericsson - Apple Records has no connection with Apple Computer. Whoaa there buckaroo...are you telling me that Apple Records does not own Apple Computer?

Yeaahaha-Rrriiiight!

FACTS:
¥ Apple Computer is the greatest contributor to music since the Beatles

¥ Michael Jackson owns rights to Beatles music.

¥ Beatles music was sold on Apple Records.

¥ Apple Records and Apple Computer are the same company. We know that because hey, Apple and Apple.

Therefore:
¥ Michael Jackson owns Apple Computer.

¥ Michael Jackson and Steve Jobs are the same person.

[bennetsaysargh]

Apple records is not owned by Apple and has nothing to do with Apple Computer at all! Argh.
Apple Computer promised not to venture into the music business because Apple Records would sue. There is the reason for all of this.

[rickvanr]

i think it was a joke...

[macmax]

i can't get no.....

upps ,


flame me, hehhehhehehehheheh:D

[NoVi]

Originally posted by Dave K
Bought them in the early 80's, which ended his friendship with Paul McCartney.

See, good old Paul gave what turned out to be the worst piece of advice ever when he mentioned to his good friend Mike that the real money in music was to own rights. So, when the Beatles Catalog came on the market sometime later, Mike put in a competing bid and won out over Paul.


I believe the rights for the Beatles songs were regulated by an other company, called Northern Songs, before being sold to MJ.

Apple was the label for which the (Ex)Beatles released records.
I have no idea who owns Apple now.

Anyway, I doubt MJ would have anything to do with sueing Apple Computer.

[Juventuz]

Originally posted by raynegus I read that in an interview with Paul McCartney and it is sad. It was when Nike was using the song Revolution in their ads and Paul was working hard to stop them. He and John agreed when they were young to never use their music for advertising and he felt he owed it to John's memory to keep any ads from using music he co-wrote (Lennon/McCartney). But wacko jacko didn't care about that.

You mean like owing it to John's memory by trying to have the writing credits changed from Lennon/McCartney to McCartney/Lennon?

Paul is all about the $$ and will do anything to protect his billions. Apple Corp is just trying to steal Apple computers thunder and get a little payday.

[iGav]

Originally posted by Juventuz
You mean like owing it to John's memory by trying to have the writing credits changed from Lennon/McCartney to McCartney/Lennon?

Paul is all about the $$ and will do anything to protect his billions. Apple Corp is just trying to steal Apple computers thunder and get a little payday.

Spot on.... ;)

Personally I though the Beatles were aload of ..... :eek: :eek: :eek: :p

[Doctor Q]

Originally posted by NoVi
I believe the rights for the Beatles songs were regulated by an other company, called Northern Songs, before being sold to MJ.Here are more details about the complicated business relationships: Rockmine (http://www.rockmine.music.co.uk/Beatles/BeatleCo.html).

An aside: I recently learned a piece of trivia about the Beatle song named "Only a Northern Song" which was on the Yellow Submarine album. One line of lyrics is "You may think the band are not quite right." I always thought the use of "are" instead of "is" was artistic license, but it is actually the normal British usage, with band as a plural noun. That's your Beatle fact of the day.

[NoVi]

Was Steve Jobs somehow influenced by the Beatles, to name his company Apple or was this a coincedence?

Funny to see what names were registered by the Beatles:
Apple Corps. ; Apple Electronics ; Apple Films ; Apple Music ; Apple Records

If personal computers would have been round in 1967 they surely would have registered Apple Computer too :D

[Rshea]

Anyone or any Company can sue at anytime they wish and reguardless of reason. It then will be based on merit or other legal stuff to procede or fall off the map. ...